OS X only internet accelerator works nicely

serranoserrano
Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
as reported by <a href="http://www.spymac.com"; target="_blank">spymac</a> (i know, i know) theres a <a href="http://www.enigmarelle.com/sw/BroadbandOptimizer/"; target="_blank">download accelerator</a> available for os x which works wonders (my experience anyways) for broadband users.



try it out if you've got os x and a broadband connection. or not.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    sizzle chestsizzle chest Posts: 1,133member
    I tried this puppy (on a DSL 256k DL & 640k UL account) and my before & after bandwidth was exactly the same.
  • Reply 2 of 23
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    Anyone have any experiences with this?
  • Reply 3 of 23
    krazyfoolkrazyfool Posts: 129member
    I use it and only notice it in uploading and when connected to fast sites. Also this should be noted that this only really works for cable modem users. I read a review of it and the gist of it was about a 30 to 50% improvement from cnets speed tester thing. You should try it for yourself to get real facts
  • Reply 4 of 23
    koffedrnkrkoffedrnkr Posts: 170member
    i'm using a cable modem and using the bandwidth tests at



    <a href="http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/"; target="_blank">http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/</a>; i found in multiple tests that my connection was actually faster without the optimizer installed. it may work for some, but certainly not for me.
  • Reply 5 of 23
    krazyfoolkrazyfool Posts: 129member
    [quote]Originally posted by koffedrnkr:

    <strong>i'm using a cable modem and using the bandwidth tests at



    <a href="http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/"; target="_blank">http://bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/</a>; i found in multiple tests that my connection was actually faster without the optimizer installed. it may work for some, but certainly not for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Without: 1598245.73 bits per second

    With: 1546866.42 bits per second

    I guess I was wrong <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    "compared to all connection types worldwide yours is fantastic" That makes me happy in its self
  • Reply 6 of 23
    sokenbisokenbi Posts: 6member
    The optimiser made no difference to me at all, on my DVDIMac 400 .......



    OSX Explorer 475 kbs

    OSX Omniweb 886 kbs



    both of these with the optimiser



    OS9 Explorer 567 kbs



    My wife just got a 5 year old, clunky Fujitsu running Windows 98, and using the same connection as me got 1.4 kbs



    Why?
  • Reply 7 of 23
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Worthless garbage, as are all download "optimizors".



    If it is so easy to speed up downloads then why wouldn't Apple do it themselves?
  • Reply 8 of 23
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    If you knew what it did, you wouldn't call it garbage.



    It's not like Speed Download, which also isn't worthless garbage.



    If this is the same one I tried once before, it basically uses built-in command line tools to change settings in the TCP/IP stack...



    [code]sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536

    sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536

    sysctl -w kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=524288

    sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0

    sysctl -w net.inet.udp.recvspace=73728</pre><hr></blockquote>



    vs



    [code]sysctl net.inet.tcp.sendspace=32768

    sysctl net.inet.tcp.recvspace=32768

    sysctl kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=262144

    sysctl net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=1

    sysctl net.inet.udp.recvspace=41600</pre><hr></blockquote>



    It increases the number of ports it recognizes to the max. It increases the packet buffer size and lowers the delay between acknowledging packets.



    On the other hand, "Download Accelerators" *are* also useful on busy servers. They just multiply the # of client connections. They won't increase your cable line's max download speed, but it will increase the size of the pie piece you get from a server that has its own bandwidth saturated.
  • Reply 9 of 23
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    [quote]On the other hand, "Download Accelerators" *are* also useful on busy servers. They just multiply the # of client connections. <hr></blockquote>



    Yeah, these sorts of utilities work well, but I'm skeptical of the "optimizer" variant. Why would OS X ship with poor internet "stack" settings? Sure OS X needs optimization, but when it's as easy as changing a few values why wouldn't Apple simply change the defaults?
  • Reply 10 of 23
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>



    Yeah, these sorts of utilities work well, but I'm skeptical of the "optimizer" variant. Why would OS X ship with poor internet "stack" settings? Sure OS X needs optimization, but when it's as easy as changing a few values why wouldn't Apple simply change the defaults?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The TCP settings can't optimized (by default) for all the different connections. Settings that are optimized for normal (hub/switch) ethernet would not be optimized for a DOSIS (cable modem) over ethernet nor would it optimized for Satellite modem over ethernet etc etc etc.



    Each method of communication using ethernet has it's own 'best settings'.



    Visit <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/faq/tweaks"; target="_blank">http://www.dslreports.com/faq/tweaks</a>; for tons of good info on the topic.



    Dave
  • Reply 11 of 23
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    The defaults in OS X seem to be optimized for modem users.
  • Reply 12 of 23
    thinkingdifferentthinkingdifferent Posts: 1,604member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>

    [code]sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536

    sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536

    sysctl -w kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=524288

    sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0

    sysctl -w net.inet.udp.recvspace=73728</pre><hr></blockquote>



    vs



    [code]sysctl net.inet.tcp.sendspace=32768

    sysctl net.inet.tcp.recvspace=32768

    sysctl kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=262144

    sysctl net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=1

    sysctl net.inet.udp.recvspace=41600</pre><hr></blockquote>



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Too bad these settings can't be made per interface.



  • Reply 13 of 23
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    I tired this thing and with IE, OW, Entourage open something would quit, Then I'd open which ever one quit and then finder would crash. Then I'd open just OW and watch a java sports scoreboard and it would quit. Then I'd try in IE and it would quit and then the finder would crash.



    Basically, after installing this on my virgin dual gig internet apps would freak out if I was surfing the net and email app was checking for mail. I trashed it and the crashes are fewer between but still happen every now and them.



    Can someone tell me how to get the settings back to their defaults?
  • Reply 14 of 23
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Kidred, there's absolutely no way this would effect the stability of your machine if you did everything as directed. All it installs is a UNIX shell-script that tells the computer to open its TCP/IP stack a bit wider for broadband connections.



    If you're getting stability problems, it's something else. I guarantee it.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    nostradamusnostradamus Posts: 397member
    Before:

    Your raw speed was 2919957.14 bits per second (2.9 Mbits).



    After:

    Your raw speed was 3439389.31 bits per second (3.4 Mbits).



    I found it results to be consistantly at least 300 megabits faster using the modifications under IE.



    [ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 23
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Eugene, It's the only thing I can think of. No crashes or weird things since I got the dual 2 weeks ago. Then 5 minutes after installing this script/app whatever, all internet apps started crashing and bringing down the finder. No other apps would crash, only IE, and OW. If I had IE, OW, mail, ICQ and iTunes streaming live radio in the background, the finder would crash and re log itself basically. Then, after deleting the StartUp folder that contained this thing, stability is once again back. Process of elimination in my case. It did something, without a shadow of a doubt. No problems before, and none after trashing it, yet I had horrible crashes with internet apps while it was installed.



    Maybe it doesn't like my router, my cable modem, or whatever, but it did do something to my machine.
  • Reply 17 of 23
    thinkingdifferentthinkingdifferent Posts: 1,604member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>Kidred, there's absolutely no way this would effect the stability of your machine if you did everything as directed. All it installs is a UNIX shell-script that tells the computer to open its TCP/IP stack a bit wider for broadband connections.



    If you're getting stability problems, it's something else. I guarantee it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oooo, those are pretty firm words there.. How well do you know the kernel source. Seeing as how he has a dual box, I wouldn't rule out this problem. Maybe there is some weird race condition in the IP stack that only occurrs on dual boxes.

    :eek:
  • Reply 18 of 23
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    That would be merited except I have the exact same machine he does, and it causes no problems here.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    stimulistimuli Posts: 564member
    hey Eug, 2 questions regarding your screenshot on your website:



    One, is QT5 using 96% of your dual 1 ghz to play a QT Movie?!



    Second, why isn't your terminal semitransparent?
  • Reply 20 of 23
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    QT is using 4.2% of my CPU(s) to play the movie.



    I have no reason to make my terminal windows semi-transparent, other than to strain my eyes.
Sign In or Register to comment.